Firstand Last Name (no title)
Thispaper reviews two articles. In the review, the study examines theproblems or questions that the research is concerned about. A briefoverview of data collection process is also given. Central to theconcerns of the research is the source of data, that is, whether thedata is collected from a questionnaire or existing statisticalinformation. The study also details both the dependent andindependent variables. The sample size estimation is discussed, andthe paper queries whether power analysis was conducted. Thediscussions also include the statistic used to measure the hypothesesand its appropriateness. Section two of the paper mainly concentrateson evaluation of data analysis. The findings of data analysis arediscussed and the conclusions reached by the authors drawn. Theposition regarding the conclusion is also reached whether they are inorder or not. In addition, some of the issues that are discussedinclude study limitations and the findings of the study and whetherthe findings are confusing or not. The significance of the study tonursing peers is also discussed. A key part of the findings includesthe issues in the studies that the researcher may question. Lastly,the study presents the summary of the thoughts that are related tothe usefulness of the statistics.
Inthis research, the area of concern is the analytic approaches thatare used in the recent laboratory stress research (Lehman, Kirsch &Jones, 2015). Most articles previously have aggregated multipleresponses, applied the use of difference scores or even attempted tocarry out repeated measures analysis of variance. Very few studiesconcentrated on the use of multilevel modeling approach. This paperseeks to highlight the advantages of using the multi-level modelingapproach and give an example to use the approach as an alternative tothe repeated measures ANOVA and difference scores (Lehman, Kirsch &Jones, 2015).
Thedata collection process in this study entailed a systematic review ofthe primary analytic approach that was adopted for the analysis ofcommon laboratory stressors and must have been documented betweenJanuary 2010 to July 2014 (Lehman, Kirsch & Jones, 2015). Thedata collected included all the results that were got from PsycINFOand the ones that had used terms such as Trier social stress task,laboratory and cardiovascular reactivity, laboratory and cortisolreactivity, laboratory and emotional reactivity, laboratory andimmune, and finally, laboratory and oxytocin (Lehman, Kirsch &Jones, 2015).
Toensure that the sample is properly composed, the study also includedstandardized stress task, which entailed more than two repeatedmeasurements of physiological or emotional outcomes. To ensure thatthere is no generalizability, the study mainly confined itself toadult populations considered healthy and in the process excluded thedifferent articles that concentrated on samples affected bypsychological or physiological illness and those that focus onchildren or adolescents. During the data collection process, theresearcher did not include the articles that mainly examinedcontinuous measures given that they are not flexible in regards tothe manner in which data is analyzed.
Thedata was extracted from the existing statistical information mainlyderived from previous studies that were documented between January2010 and July 2014 (Lehman, Kirsch & Jones, 2015).
Independentand Dependent Variables
Thestudy has no dependent variable and independent variables given thatthe researcher was only analyzing the change over time in laboratoryresearch on stress and health.
Inthis study, a power analysis was not conducted and was neverreported. This means that we have to check for the sample size thatwas used and find out if it was adequate. Given that the sample sizewas mainly determined by absolute terms, it is hard to acknowledge orfind out if the sample size was indeed sufficient. In this study, thesample size estimator was never reported in the article and themethod that was used in to estimate the sample size for the study wasthe just inclusion of certain terms. More terms were added to ensurethat sample is adequate.
Thereis no statistic applied in measuring the hypothesis as no researchhypotheses exist. The researcher further stated no assumption hencethe manner in which they are met is not outlined at all. Therefore,from the study, it cannot be ascertained that the level ofmeasurement is appropriate in any way. The data was displayed in bothgraphs and tables. The display of data gives the reader easyvisibility hence making the interpretation of data easy.
Thisstudy mainly seeks to assess the presence of within-group comparisonswith baseline in a subset of leading dental journals and study design(Koletsi, Madahar, Fleming & Pandis, 2015).
Duringthe data collection process, thirty consecutive issues regarding fiveleading dental journals were searched electronically. The searchprocess only incorporated the content for five years, spanning fromJanuary 2008 to December 2012 (Koletsi et al., 2015). During theprocess, the conduct and the reporting of statistical analysis as faras comparisons against a baseline or otherwise along with the mannerof interpretation of the results were assessed. During this processthe descriptive statistic was got, the study also undertookchi-square test and Fisher’s exact to help test the link thatexists between trial characteristics and the overall interpretationof the study. The publications that were included involved the cohortsamples without the inclusion of the comparator group that wasexcluded (Koletsi et al., 2015). Some of the appropriate articles forthe study were grouped depending on design to observational studiesand interventional ones that included any clinical trial, that is,both randomized and non-randomized in humans. The study alsoincorporated the laboratory and animal studies separately though theywere classified accurately as such (Koletsi et al., 2015).
Thedata used in this study mainly was from the previous statisticalinformation derived from earlier done research work. The statisticaldata include thirty consecutive issues of five leading dentaljournals that were searched electronically.
Independentand Dependent variables
Theindependent variable in this case is baseline while the dependentvariable is statistical testing.
Inthis study, the power analysis was never carried out. The studyseemingly relied so much on sample size calculator. The sample sizethat was derived mainly relied on the comprehensive instructions andthe extracted data on some predetermined standard forms for thestudies that were considered eligible. First, there was initialcalibration that was done between the two researchers on the twentyarticles that were identified. Further, inter-examiner reliabilitywas evaluated on a small grouping comprising ten articles. During theselection process, disagreements were then resolved throughdiscussion and some were done through the input of the thirdreviewer. Additionally, comparisons against the baseline or otherwisealong with the nature of results interpretation for publication wererecorded. Additionally, data was also evaluated based on continent ofauthorship, the number of authors, the different number of researchcenters, and the significance of the results statistically (Koletsiet al., 2015). Appropriateness of Sample Size to theStatistical Test
Thestatistical test chosen is ANOVA. ANOVA is appropriate as the samplesize estimation. Through ANOVA, the analysis of differences in thegroup means and the various links would have been carried out. Inthis study, the main objective is to find the presence ofwithin-group comparisons with a baseline in a subset of leadingjournals. By using ANOVA, the researcher is in a position to presentinterpretation of outcomes depending on comparisons against baseline(Koletsi et al., 2015).
Statisticused to measure the Hypotheses/ Research Questions
Toaddress the research question, the author used Chi-square test andFisher’s exact test. The tests are appropriate given that they arethe right way of establishing whether there exist the link betweenthe trial characteristics with the overall interpretation of theresults of the eligible studies grounded on comparisons against thebaseline (Koletsi et al., 2015). In this study, there were noassumptions held on the hypothesis or the research question.
Forarticle one, the researcher is reporting on the various statisticaltests that were done quantitatively without doing the real test.However, this is a different case with article two as the researcherembarks on the real studies. In fact, for the second article, theresearcher uses a couple of different statistical test to establishthe results. For both the articles, the researchers do not dwell intothe research hypothesis and the assumptions of the studies. Thisleaves room for a lot of speculation. A properly set up study need tohave delimitations that guide the researcher.
SectionII: Data Analysis Evaluation
Thedescriptive statistics used by Koletsi et al. (2015), showed that theincorrect utilization of baseline testing was less probable ininterventional studies (P < 0.001). On the other hand, the dataanalysis used by Lehman, Kirsch & Jones (2015) noted that a largenumber of latest articles had amassed various responses, adopteddifferent scores, or carried out repeated measures assessment ofvariance. Koletsi et al., (2015) concluded that the utilization ofbaseline seemed to be common among both interventional andobservational studies in dentistry in addition to the fact thatimproved conduction and reporting of statistical tests are needed tomake sure that inferences from the studies are informative andappropriate. On the other hand, Lehman, Kirsch & Jones (2015)concluded that the results of this research emphasized thesignificance of viewing the variances in direction and rates ofchange separately during trauma and recovery periods.
Iagree with the conclusion made by Lehman, Kirsch & Jones (2015)because they were similar to the one’s obtained by Goldman-Melloret al. (2012) and Ong et al. (2012) that showed lonely peopledemonstrated higher blood pressure reaction to and slow regainingfrom a laboratory stressor. The conclusion made by Koletsi et al.,(2015) was also acceptable because the research followed preciselyinscribed instructions and obtained data on pre-specified standardform for appropriate studies. The limitation of the research studyconducted by Koletsi et al., (2015) is related to the fact that it isthe first study to carry out an investigation of statistical error indentistry. Thus there existed no other article for reference orinference. On the other hand, the article on Lehman, Kirsch &Jones (2015) was limited by the use of repeated measures of ANOVAconsidering that it required the authors to draw on all the strengthsof the whole dataset using MLM to carry out an estimation of therecovery and reactivity to lab stress tasks.
Koletsiet al., (2015) addressed the limitation by making sure that theycarried out a detailed study selection bearing in mind that they hadno other previous research paper to compare with. On the other hand,Lehman, Kirsch & Jones (2015) addressed the limitation bymaximizing on the merits of MLM approaches with the example of itsflexibility to allow approximation of linear shifts across more thanone periods and to permit assessment of individual changes in theshifting patterns within every period of interest. Descriptivestatistics was the data analysis method used by Koletsi et al.,(2015) in the study considering that they were computed on theoverall number of studies depending on a range of variables likecontinent and study design category. On the other hand, Lehman,Kirsch & Jones (2015) utilized some methods for the data analysiswith the main being tracking of every used difference score thatformed an effective tool for the analysis of variances betweentwo-time points. In both the articles, one of the things that wereconducted well is the analysis of the results considering that theauthors of both articles went into greater length to analyses andinferred what they obtained. Additionally, the conclusions of thepapers were well elaborated by the authors so that the readers canunderstand what the entire paper by reading the section since itcontains a glimpse of the background. The article by Lehman, Kirsch &Jones (2015) has an indigent abstract that does not elaborate whatthe study is about considering that it lacks the study methods, theresults and the conclusion made by the authors. On the other hand,the research paper by Koletsi et al., (2015) seemed to have beenconducted in the right manner with no poor section identified exceptthe fact that the authors failed to indicate the limitations of thestudy precisely. For both the articles, I believe the findings werecorrect because they were similar to previous studies in addition tothe fact that they paved way to further studies on the two areas.
SectionIII: Understanding the Data
Boththe studies are useful to the nursing peers because they have beenconducted based on precisely inscribed instruction in terms of datacollection. The authors of both articles have elaborated the researchmethods used clearly and the results of the studies in addition tobacking them up with results from similar studies. However, thenursing peers will think of the results of studies as insufficientconsidering that additional ones need to be conducted to make surethat the inferences are correct. One of the confusing aspects relatedto the research by Koletsi et al., (2015) is why there does not existvarious previous studies on the topic. Regarding the paper by Lehman,Kirsch & Jones (2015) the nursing peer may be confused on why MLMbegan to be used recently, yet it had been identified as a usefultool since the 1990s. The aspect of the studies that will bequestioned by the peers is why repeated measure of ANOVA analysis wasthe one used based on Lehman, Kirsch & Jones (2015) paper. Ingeneral, the both the research will provide sufficient proof tochange practice because the authors used the right research method tocarry out the research, thus producing correct and verifiableresults.
Thefirst article mainly concentrates on finding the analytic approachesthat are used in the recent laboratory stress research. Most articlespreviously have aggregated multiple responses, applied the use ofdifference scores or even made attempts to carry out repeatedmeasures analysis of variance. On the other hand, the second articleis designed to assess the presence of within-group comparisons withbaseline in a subset of leading dental journals and study design. Forarticle one, the researcher is reporting on the various statisticaltests that were done quantitatively without doing the real test.However, this is a different case with article two as the researcherembarks on the actual studies. In fact, for the second article, theresearcher uses a couple of different statistical test to establishthe results.
Inboth the articles, the researchers do not dwell into the researchhypothesis and the assumptions of the studies. This leaves room for alot of speculation. A properly set up study need to havedelimitations that guide the researcher. Both the studies are usefulto the nursing peers because they have been conducted based onprecisely inscribed instruction in terms of data collection. Theauthors of both articles have elaborated the research methods usedclearly and the results of the studies in addition to backing them upwith results from similar studies. However, the nursing peers willthink of the results of studies as insufficient considering thatadditional ones need to be conducted to make sure that the inferencesare correct. Additionally, the conclusions of the papers were wellelaborated by the authors so that the readers can understand what theentire paper by reading the section since it contains a glimpse ofthe background. The article by Lehman et al., (2015) has a very poorabstract that does not elaborate what the study is about consideringthat it lacks the study methods, the results and the conclusion madeby the authors. On the other hand, the research paper by Koletsi etal., (2015) seemed to have been conducted in the right manner with nopoor section identified except the fact that the authors failed toprecisely indicate the limitations of the study.
Goldman-Mellor,S., Hamer, M., & Steptoe, A. (2012). Early-life stress andrecurrent psychological distress over the lifecourse predictdivergent cortisol reactivity patterns in adulthood.Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(11), 1755–1768.doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.03.010
Koletsi,D., Madahar, A., Fleming, P. S., & Pandis, N. (2015). Statisticaltesting against baseline was common in dental research. Journalof clinical epidemiology, 68(7),776-781.
Lehman,B. J., Kirsch, J. A., & Jones, D. R. (2015). Effectivelyanalyzing change over time in laboratory research on stress andhealth: a multilevel modeling approach. Socialand Personality Psychology Compass, 9(10),551-566.
Ong,A. D., Rothstein, J. D., & Uchino, B. N. (2012). Lonelinessaccentuates age differences in cardiovascular responses to socialevaluative threat. Psychology and Aging, 27, 190–198.